View Single Post
Old 05-01-2011, 11:14 PM   #85
MindBomber
Wanna have a threesome?
 
MindBomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Squamish
Posts: 4,888
Thanked 5,054 Times in 1,657 Posts
Failed 439 Times in 203 Posts
That's not cool, you have no reason to call my understanding uninformed and degrading the discussion to personal insults isn't something anyone benefits from. Even though I feel like some people with opposing views in the political discussions are uninformed idiots, you are not a member of the group Taylor, I bite my tongue to keep everything focused on what counts, the facts. I've repeatedly said that that $4 million per year for long guns is a figure way to low, I suggested earlier that the total annual cost of the gun registry could probably be cut in half by by dropping long guns. I don't think that's unreasonable considering there are a lot of fixed expenses that would not change if only the restricted registry were kept and that restricted weapons cost more per gun to track. My concern on dropping tax payer funding to political parties is that it opens the door to allowing corporate funding, that's what's made American politics such a glorified popularity contest based on who can afford more commercials. (I hate not being able to break my response down to seperate paragraphs on mobile)
Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor192 View Post
Logically long guns outnumber hand guns 15 to 1, so logically it cannot cost $4M of the $65M spent every year on the gun registry.

If you want to talk logically please bring some logic to the table. American style politics is an uneducated popularity contest - your, and many other Canadians, lack of understanding pushes us closer to that type of politics.

There was a report that showed that tax payer funding could be easily dropped. I'll see if I can find the statscan article again, yet they compiled a ratio of how much each party raises vs gets from tax payers. The Liberals were above 1:1, the Conservatives close to 2:1, and the NDP greater than 2:1. So those 3 parties are doing fine raising their own funds. There was no info on the Greens, yet last election they were raising > $100M/day which would put them > 2:1 as well.

Which party serves to lose hugely from abolishing the tax payer funding? The BQ. They were like 0.1:1, raising virtually nothing compared to what they get from the tax payer. Considering we all hate the fucking separatists - this would be the single best way to limit how effective they can be while barely affecting the other parties.

Yet I know this cause I don't believe in American style politics and educate myself
Posted via RS Mobile
MindBomber is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by: